"I cannot help but speculate on how the software on the Curiosity rover has been constructed. We know that most of the code is written in C and that it comprises 2.5 Megalines of code, roughly. One may wonder why it is possible to write such a complex system and have it work. This is the Erlang programmers view."

On "Some of the traits of the Curiosity Rovers software closely resembles the architecture of Erlang. Are these traits basic for writing robust software?" - Well, I'd say it doesn't resemble Erlang, but it does resemble good thinking and good engineering, which might have been the case with Erlang designers too (which I don't know).

On the other hand: Megalines? Really? That's not geeky, that's stupid. What comes next, hectolines?

This is indeed a good article.
There is the old divide between "hackers" and "engineers".

Critical software is done by engineers : There is no very clever hack, software must be readable and modified for more 20 years, and everything is aboundantly documented and based on requirements which are later verified. The software must do exactly what it is expected to do, nothing more.

Of course, it is extremely expensive and it is certainly pointless to use this development method to all software, and it certainly stifles creativity.